SANGEETA 2026.07.27 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-LP-76-2024 in LPA-1991-2024 2 (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 on the matter relating to storage gain and in the absence of any statutory rule governing storage gain to be delivered on wheat stock. 3. The Single Bench, in its judgment dated 24.05.2024 held that writ petition(s) were pre-mature and pre-emptive as no final order had been passed. 4. Aggrieved thereof, the LPA No.1991 of 2024 was filed by the appellant herein. The LPA by the appellant was disposed of vide judgment dated 13.09.2024. The operative part reads thus: “13. We do not find any merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for appellants in LPA Nos. 1991, 1992 & 2025 of 2024 that said appeals should also be accepted and the matters remanded before learned Single Bench. Learned counsel for appellant in LPA-1992-2024 stated that said appellant had earlier filed CWP-24863-2019 challenging the norms in question, therefore, in respect to subsequent show cause notice issued on the same basis, challenge was not laid to the norms again. It is further submitted that appellant in LPA- 1991-2024 seeks setting aside of circulars/instructions dated 17/18.04.2000. However, perusal of said appeals does not reveal any specific challenge to applicable norms as are under question in CWP-27725-2013 and other connected matters. 15. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above:- i). LPA Nos.717 and 2026 of 2024 are disposed of with impugned order dated 05.03.2024 being set aside and the matter remanded before the learned Single Bench, to be decided alongwith CWP-27725-2013. Parties are at liberty to raise all available pleas before learned Single Bench. ii). LPA Nos. 1975, 1991, 1992, 1571, 1585 and 2025 of 2024 are disposed of being devoid of any merit. Appellants in all the above said matters are at liberty to take all pleas available to them in accordance with law before the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority.” 5. The present review has now been filed after a change in counsel and it is contended that there had been a challenge to the Rules yet, the LPA has been dismissed while other appeals were disposed of by setting aside the judgment of Single Bench and remanding the case. SANGEETA 2026.07.27 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-LP-76-2024 in LPA-1991-2024 3 6. Counsel for PUNSUP, however, reads the prayer of the review applicant in the writ petition, which reads thus: “Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned office order dated. 17/18.04.2000 (Annexure P-15) issued by the respondents where by respondents have issued the instructions regarding storage gain in total violation of Punjab Govt. Instructions contained in letter dated 16.04.1999 (Annexure P-11) vide which the norms which have been fixed requiring the fields staff to give storage gain (excess) of 1 kg per qtl in case of covered godowns and 700 gms per qtl in case of open storage of stocks during its first year (w.e.f. 1st August to 31st March) of storage only; and also for setting aside the impugned order Dated 27.02.2009 (Annexure P-20), order dated 28.03.2013 (Annexure P-26) as well as impugned charge sheet dated 07.11.2019 (Annexure P-26/A) issued by the respondents whereby storage gain is being claimed on the wheat stocks only on the basis of letter dated 28.10.2003 (Annexure P-17) issued by the FCI being totally illegal, arbitrary, unjust and not sustainable at law.” 7. It is contended that while instructions were issued on 16.04.1999, challenge in the writ petition was only to the office order dated 17/18.04.2000. Hence, while the effect was being challenged, the cause was not a subject matter of challenge. 8. It is submitted that a review, after a change of counsel is not maintainable and that the applicant should first approach the authorities. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant contends that he apprehends that coercive step will be taken by the respondent, against him without finalization of the charge-sheet. 10. Counsel for the respondent responds that the apprehension is not based upon any tangible material and is only conjectural and pre-emptive. Till such time the disciplinary proceedings are finalized, there would be no occasion for initiation of any recovery proceedings against the appellant herein. SANGEETA 2026.07.27 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RA-LP-76-2024 in LPA-1991-2024 4 11. In the circumstances as above, learned counsel for the review- applicant does not press the review application and seeks withdrawal thereof so as to take all his pleas before departmental authorities in accordance with law. 12. Disposed of as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE (SUKHVINDER KAUR) July 21, 2026 JUDGE Sangeeta Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No SANGEETA 2026.07.27 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document